Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Feynman/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2017 [1].

Richard Feynman[edit]

Nominator(s): DVdm (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Richard Feynman, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist. But it's more than that; in terms of page views, he ranks above all other winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics except Albert Einstein and Marie Curie! He also ranks ahead of all the Manhattan Project people except Robert Oppenheimer. The article averages over 3,000 page views per diem, which works out to over one million per annum. It is a Level 4 Vital Article. Why? God knows.

This article has a chequered history. It was created by Larry Sanger back in September 2001, so it is also one of Wikipedia's oldest articles. It became a featured article in August 2004 and was featured on the front page in December 2004. But it was demoted in May 2006. In June 2006 it became a Good Article but was delisted in October 2008. I restored the article as part of my effort to improve the Manhattan Project People in August 2016. Now DVdm and I are co-nominating it for restoration of its long-lost feature status. The article has 697 watchers, so I'm hoping that maybe two or three of them will step up and review the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Some readers will inevitably have problems understanding the physics, but the links will help. I enjoyed reading the article immensely and found no contradictions with what I already knew about Feynman from my reading of Gleick (although this was some years ago). I have not fully checked the images - the Lead one might present a problem. My thanks to the nominators and all the other editors who have contributed to this. Graham Beards (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your review Graham. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my concern was addressed. The article appears to satisfy the FA criteria. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: overall it looks good. The section I have some concerns about is "What Science is". Are the explanations under each of the bullets meant to be quotes from his address? I understand the intent, but believe the statements need to be placed in context. Praemonitus (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the points are not from his lecture. I am concerned about it too - enough to remove the section it and replace it with an external link to the actual text of the lecture. The section doesn't reflect what I recall from the lecture, which you can read here Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. After my removal of the TEDxCALTECH section, I thought about removing this section too, but I decided to stay silent and see what happened. This happened just now. Fully agree. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg: suggest adding a data source
Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:FeynmanAMNH.jpg. If we consider this to be a 2D work, the uploader holds no copyright; if we consider this to be a 3D work, we should include a licensing tag for the original monument
I thought it fell below the threshold of originality - removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics.jpg: what is the licensing of the original work?
Copyright © 1963, 2006, 2013 by the California Institute of Technology. I'd add a template:Non-free use rationale book cover template, but it's on Commons, so I can't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Feymanlibrary.JPG: not sure we can ignore the cover copyrights here...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a composite work, so the photographer has copyright of the image, but not of the book covers. Again, it's on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this as a DYK in August when it was a double hook with Matthew Sands. Feynmann has always been an interesting character to me. I can see there has been some fine tuning since August in the way of format, prose, citations. But it remains pretty much the article I reviewed in August. Nothing to quibble about. I'm glad to see this at FAC, and am happy to give my support. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead image (File:Richard Feynman Nobel.jpg) has tags that indicate that the file is PD in Sweden but may be copyrighted in the United States. What time it was PD? Is it appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken in 1965. It was first published in Sweden that year. Copyright there was 25 years at the time, so it expired in 1990 and the image entered the public domain in Sweden. It was in the public domain there in 1996, and it is therefore appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}, which I have added. The image should not be copied to Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweden PD tag says "If the media is in the public domain in both Sweden and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons." So it can be transferred to Commons, since it's PD in the source country (Sweden) and the United States. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why General Relativity is capitalized? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an artifact. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most refs have a date format January 1, 2017, but 104 and 179 do not, they have 1 January 2017. They should be consistent. HalfGig talk 02:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, along with three other instances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not want to mention this in 'popular legacy', just a suggestion, but character Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory is a huge Feynmann fan. This link here isn't the greatest source, but it'll give you an idea of Cooper's fandom: [2] HalfGig talk 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an acceptable source for Cooper, if you care to include it. HalfGig talk 12:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Wil Wheaton? Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sheldon Cooper is played by Jim Parsons. Will Wheaton has a recurring minor role on the show though. HalfGig talk 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Sheldon is the one on the right in the green tee shirt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Will Wheaton is on the left with the United Federation of Planets flag and Sheldon is on the right in the green tee shirt. HalfGig talk 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Check - By this I mean I'm looking at quality of the reference sources. Most are impeccable: universities and academic journals. Some concerns:

1) is find a grave acceptable for wiki/FAs? I simply don't know
It is acceptable as a WP:RS only for photographic evidence. But that's not the case here. Substituted a newspaper article for the source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2) what about ref 170? website i09. I am not sure about this one. Open to input on this

What about this one? HalfGig talk 12:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a professionally produced website with its own Wikipedia article, but there is no mention of it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Substituted an article from The Hollywood Reporter Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) Ref 176 needs a source, the Bill Gates one
Added the publisher. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4) Ref 167 is clearly unacceptable, this goes to a site in Chinese that looks like an ad for hand lotions or something. rtopera prob lapsed control of the site and some Chinese company hijacked it. UPDATE: compare http://www.realtimeopera.org/ to http://www.rtopera.org
It's a common form of cyber-squatting. A firm pays for the provider's 404 rights. Unfortunately, it fools our external link checker and the archive bot. Well spotted btw. Corrected the address. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HalfGig talk 03:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Check Earwig's tool turns up one "possible violation". I'll look at it later. Others feel free to look too. HalfGig talk 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's picked up a quotation from James Gleick, which is attributed to him in the article. Nothing to worry about. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the Caltech match is the block quote about science textbooks, and the nuclear secrecy is the one from the FBI report. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. No issues here. HalfGig talk 23:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per all my above comments. Kudos to those editors who worked so much to get this article to this point. I really enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. HalfGig talk 23:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.